JUDGMENT S.K. Kaul, J. - This is a revision by Ram Prasad against his sentence and conviction to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment as well as fine of Rs. 1C00 or in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months more under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. The prosecution story is that on 21-7-1977 at about 1.00 P.M. noon the Food Inspector Shri P. D. Srivastava found Ram Prasad selling milk. He purchased 660 mis. for Rs. 1.50 Paise. Certain relevant documents were prepared. The sample was divided into three parts and each part, after adding relevant quantity of formalin, was kept in a phial. The phials were sealed and stoppered and one of the samples was sent to the public analyst. The-report of the public analyst was that on the basis of standard for milk for she-buffalo, the sample was deficient in fatty solids, by 4.3 percent and in non-fatty solids by 7 percent. A copy of the report was sent to the accused and after obtaining sanction a complaint was filed in the court of the Magistrate, who took cognizance and summoned the accused to stand his trial under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The defence of the accused was denied. 3. The learned Magistrate found that the prosecution story was fully made out and as such he sentenced and convicted the accused as above. Feeling aggrieved, the accused went up in appeal but the learned Sessions Judge rejected the appeal and that is how he has come up in revision to this Court. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist. In my view this revision has to be allowed. 5. There can be no doubt that on the relevant date, time and place the accused sold milk to the Food Inspector. There are two questions involved in this case. The first question is about the quality of the milk namely whether it was she-buffalo's or cow's milk or the mixed milk of cow and she-buffalo. It is significant to note that so far as the prosecution is concerned, it is absolutely silent on this aspect. I he documents prepared on the spot show that only milk was taken as sample. It is significant to note that so far as the prosecution is concerned, it is absolutely silent on this aspect. I he documents prepared on the spot show that only milk was taken as sample. I have been noticing that this Food Inspector is in the habit of rot mentioning even upon enquiry from the accused whether the milk is of she-buffalo or of cow. Several cases of his were decided by me in the past week and this tendency on the part of this Food Inspector to say the least is deplorable. It is true that the accused when put a question said that the milk was a mixed one namely cow and she-buffalo but immediately he moved an application in the Court that actually it was cow's milk. Even if it is taken to be a mixed milk of cow and she-buffalo we can only apply the standard fixed for cow's milk. The standard for cow's milk in U.P., according to the table given in Appendix B of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, is 3.5 for fatty solids, and 8.5 for non-fatty solids. In the instant case, the public analyst found that the sample contained 3.4-as fatty solids and 8.4 as non-fatty solids. Obviously difference which is extremely negligible and can be ignored because there can be a legitimate mistake in analysis. 6. The other point is that the law required atleast one witness to be present at the time of taking of the sample. It is, however possible that at the time of taking of the sample, witnesses may not be agreeable to appear as witnesses but that fact has to be mentioned specifically in the documents in the own hand writing of the Food Inspector. I find, in the instant case, that in Ext. Ka-3 Which is a printed form the following words are mentioned "Uprokt samast Karyawahi nimankit sakshiyon tatha ukt vikreta ke samakchh ki gayee. Mauke par upasthit viaktiyon main se koi gawahi dene ke liye mere anurodh karne par taiyar nahi huye." I strongly disapprove of this method of getting this fact namely that persons present on the spot were not agreeable to give evidence inspite of persuasion, printed in this printed form. Mauke par upasthit viaktiyon main se koi gawahi dene ke liye mere anurodh karne par taiyar nahi huye." I strongly disapprove of this method of getting this fact namely that persons present on the spot were not agreeable to give evidence inspite of persuasion, printed in this printed form. If we allow such tactics to be adopted by the Food Inspector the very object of insertion of that proviso in the Act would be defeated and given a go-bye. I hope in future, the authorities of the Food Department would look into the matter and this sentence should be deleted if at all a printed form has to be used by the Food Inspector. 7. The other point that gees in favour of the accused is that in this case the sample was taken into possession on 21-7-1977. The complaint was filed in this case on 4-8-1978 as record goes to show that is to say more than one year after taking into possession of the sample. Even if the formalin is added to the sample normally the sample would retain its quality for about 10 months. Section 13 (2-A) and (2-B) says that it is only after a complaint has been filed that an application can be moved by an accused to the Court requesting that one of the samples may be sent to the Director Central Food Laboratory. Even if the accused did not make any such request it is, obvious that by delaying the launching of the prosecution in ibis ease, the accused has been denied a valuable right to get the sample tested from the director more so when the deficiency in this ease is only 0.1 percent in both types of facts. There can be r.o doubt that in the instant case the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Act have been defeated by delayed commencement of the prosecution against the accused either due to laxity or due to negligence on the part of the Food Inspector. There are consistent views of several courts including our own on this point. In view of the inordinate delay in filing the complaint after the sample had been taken, it would be useless for the accused to ask for the analysis of the sample taken. Indeed a valuable right of the accused has been taken away and, therefore, his conviction in this case cannot be maintained. In view of the inordinate delay in filing the complaint after the sample had been taken, it would be useless for the accused to ask for the analysis of the sample taken. Indeed a valuable right of the accused has been taken away and, therefore, his conviction in this case cannot be maintained. I need not mention that it was the intention of the Legislature that the prosecution especially in adulteration cases must not only be made diligently but must also be disposed of as early as possible. Indeed, delay in instituting the prosecution especially in the case like the present one is per se a ground that would vitiate the trial. I would like the attention of the authorities of the Food Department to be drawn to this fact that in such cases especially when milk sample is taken, there should be a prompt analysis and there should also be a prompt prosecution. With these observations, I am of this view that no conviction under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Adulteration Act in the instant case can be maintained vis-a-vis the accused. 8. I would, therefore, allow the revision, set aside the sentence and conviction awarded to the accused under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and acquit him of the same. He is on bail. He need not surrender. Fine if paid shall be refunded to the revisionist.